6 ms·

An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest (2015)

37 points by luu 7y ago

iongoatb 7y ago
I work remotely and was planning on moving to Seattle next year. The more I research about the Cascadia Subduction zone and the overdue M9 earthquake, the more I am hesitant to want to live in Seattle. I honestly don't think it's worth moving to somewhere that is anticipating the worst natural disaster in the history of the USA. I think it's beautiful and a great city but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. Especially since it seems the region is extraodonarily underprepared.
- iongoatb 7y ago
  Btw, from my research, the New Yorker article is a little sensationalized. These videos are a better source of information IMO: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs
  - hugs 7y ago
    Those videos include an excellent reminder that statistically, you are very, very likely to survive the initial quake, therefore it's smart to stock up on 2 weeks of food and water, and to take a first aid training class.
    - iongoatb 7y ago
      Yes, it's the aftermath that I would be worried about. That and the well-being of your family. What if the quake happened in the middle of the day when the kids were in different schools, the wife was across the bridge in the city, and I was all the way over in Redmond? The destruction would take down cell service, internet, roads, bridges, water lines, electricity - everything to a screeching stop, potentially for WEEKS. That would be catastrophic.
- mc32 7y ago
  While I think it’s exaggerated, the concerns are valid. If something like what hit Alaska in the ‘60s hits a more densely populated are there will be damage and things will be off line for a while. But also it’s not a catastrophic event that wipes out the economy of the area. Of course that’s of no comfort to the people who will perish n such an event. It’s just that it’s not going to be like a 1920s Tokyo or SF 1906 since we should have better handle on fire and emergency response in general.
- dmux 7y ago
  I've had similar thoughts, but wouldn't giant companies like Amazon be taking this into consideration if it were really an issue?
  - rrmm 7y ago
    I wouldn't count on it. In terms of their IT infrastructure, they've got more than one datacenter geographically distributed so they're prepared for it. I don't think companies are really good about planning around events that don't happen regularly. Especially one as amorphous as "the big one" in a place that isn't California.
    - iongoatb 7y ago
      Agreed. AWS's cloud infrastructure is all about high availability and spreading computing/data resources across regions. The company's operations will be fine. Although, I'm sure the higher ups in Seattle have personally spent enormous resources to get their homes upgraded and have extensively prepared for something like this. The average person can stock up on non-perishable food and water, but besides that they don't have the resources to truly prepare for what is coming.
      - rrmm 7y ago
        You can't really prepare for everything. I would even doubt if most of the Amazon higher-ups are thinking much in this direction or are prepared in even the usual ways (2 weeks of food, a barrel of water, and extra batteries level). We just aren't going to live forever. If its any consolation, you'll (not you in particular :D) probably die in a car accident or a cardiac arrest when you aren't even worried about it.
        iongoatb 7y ago
        You can certainly prepare your house for the earthquake and shaking. For one, reinforcing the structure, making sure the ground is under the house is attached to stable, hard rock like granite versus sediment, and very importantly, using wood instead of brick or concrete (look at Bill Gates's Xanadu house - it's not a coincidence that it is completely made out of wood, the best house material for withstanding earthquakes). These people are definitely consulting scientists and engineers and preparing themselves and their family for a potential M9+ event.
- rrmm 7y ago
  Well whatever you do, don't start looking up Yellowstone.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Also Naples, IT, also sits atop a “supervolcano”[1]. It’s one whose volcanoes have erupted rather recently. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields
    - m4rtink 7y ago
      I recommend moving to Kagoshima - they have an activo volcano right over the bay (with fregvent ferry service, no less) that regurarly covers the 400k people city in ash. A honest in your face continuous natural disaster, no behind the scenes shaddy stuff that might hut you one day out of the blue. ;-)
      - rrmm 7y ago
        I can appreciate that about a natural disaster. Or one could move to Australia which in general doesn't really try to hide the fact it's constantly trying to kill you.
      - robin_reala 7y ago
        It’s the dirtiest city in Japan that I’ve been too, purely down to the light coating of volcanic ash every building, road and public bench seems to have. Very friendly though and the best butasando.
        eitland 7y ago
        Butasando looks like some kind of food but it doesn't seem to be well know, this discussion already seems to be on third place on Google for the word.
        robin_reala 7y ago
- Communitivity 7y ago
  Ken Murphy was the FEMA director at the time. He said that if the Cascadia Fault quake hits "Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast." That's pretty much all you need to know. Insurance probably won't cover quake damage without prohibitive additional charges, so even if you get out you'll lose everything. I've not gone after some Bay Area opportunities I had because of this, and because my wife is terrified of the fires in California. That said, if you still want to chance it I researched and it is possible to commute into Seattle from east of I5, just not fun.
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    It’s all some degree of trade-offs. Extreme winters in the north and north east, hurricanes along the East and Caribbean coasts, tornadoes in the middle of the US, extreme heat in the south west. The fires have always been seasonal, but combine that with old infrastructure and poor maintenance, some of it is man made so can be corrected. The earthquake potential, while could be hugely devastating, happens once every 30 years for medium ones and once every 100 or so years for the big ones. That’s very different from the risks the rest of the country deals with every year.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Virginia seems to get a little of everything, but not enough to be an issue. It gets snow but it’s a long way from the extreme winters you get in the north east. Hurricanes turn into heavy rains when you leave the coast. Earthquake’s are hardly a concern outside the risk of minor property damage.
    - bagacrap 7y ago
      The West (4 corners) doesn't really get disasters although the typical weather is pretty bonkers.
  - dTal 7y ago
    >That said, if you still want to chance it I researched and it is possible to commute into Seattle from east of I5, just not fun. I wouldn't have thought that would even help much. Even if your house survives, its value will tank and your job will be "toast".
- dboreham 7y ago
  I moved next to Yellowstone. Much worse disaster expected here.
  - hugs 7y ago
    Do people there shrug off the risk? Or does it feel like they are generally aware of and have planned for it?
    - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
      There's not really any risk worth worrying about, there is no imminent eruption coming. Its not even a given that it will have a major eruption again. If it does start erupting, we're most likely going to know its imminent well ahead of time (earthquakes, smaller eruptions, etc). In Yellowstone's case, the timescales involved are hundreds of thousands of years or more, where margins of error dwarf human lifetimes.
- gst 7y ago
  > FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... > For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... The consequences of that earthquake don't sound too bad in comparison to other risks.
  - macrolime 7y ago
    If you want this comparisons to make any sense you need to compare with the number of traffic deaths in the area that can be affected by Cascadia, otherwise you might as well compare with millions of other deaths anywhere in the world.
- daxfohl 7y ago
  I had the same worry three years ago when I moved here. And of being the closest big metro to North Korea. I've gotten used to it. After doing a bit of research I realize the story is overblown (I mean, it'll be bad, especially on the coast, but most people a bit inland will survive and carry on. I lived through Wenchuan so.). I'm far more afraid of these giant Douglas Firs and their branches during snow and wind storms now. And, the likely drop in home value in the next recession. And realistically I should be more afraid of driving to work every day. (Even though Seattle seems to have pretty good drivers compared to Chicago).
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
I was surprised FEMA only estimates 13,000 deaths from this cataclysmic earthquake. I wonder how accurate that is.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Earthquakes aren't necessarily highly lethal events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_Uni... Countries that are more exposed to Tsunamis have it worse.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    To be clear, there will be tsunamis: this is potentially a Tohoku-magnitude event closer to the coastline, but the Northwest ocean-front coastline is relatively thinly populated.
cultus 7y ago
This article is misleading and gives a sensationist look at the actual earthquake risk in the NW. It was not well received among seismologists working in the NW. It is not dangerous to live in the NW. Be prepared, yes, but there's no reason to be fearful.
- mflamespin 7y ago
  Source?
  - cultus 7y ago
    From the former director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/ https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/
    - hyperpape 7y ago
      While that's a useful counterpoint, it doesn't really provide an estimate of the damage that could be done. I'm thinking of questions like: 1. Are there areas where people currently live that shouldn't be inhabited? 2. What's the worst case death toll? I realize there's uncertainty, but a more concrete rebuttal would still be better.
- iongoatb 7y ago
  I disagree that it's not dangerous. The initial earthquake may only immediately kill a few thousand but the aftermath would be absolutely devastating. It would be the most catastrophic natural disaster and humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States. We know that it is coming and that it is overdue. It would be greater than 911, Katrina, and all the other crises that have occurred that we are still dealing with the aftermath of.
  - cultus 7y ago
    No, there's been plenty of worse disasters. The San Francisco 1906 earthquake, the Galveston hurricane, etc. The cumulative earthquake risk around Seattle is about 1/2 of California. I'm not a seismologist, but I was a geophysicist who knew many seismologists working in the NW. They uniformly thought it was sensationalist. I'm not saying this isn't a major threat that must be prepared for, but it's not an apocalyptic or existential threat like this article makes it out to be.
yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
Strange to see this marked as 2015. I watched a documentary in (I think) 2004 that predicted the same (or worse) outcome, but attributed it to the collapse of a volcano on one of the Canary Islands because its structure contains vertical panels of water and is thus unstable. Supposedly, half the volcano will fall into the sea, creating a huge tidal wave which will destroy the entire east coast of the US and 20km inland. Hey, turns out I remembered correctly. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/10/science.spain https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/a...
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  The Grand Canary supervolcano would have a hard time destroying the Northwestern US, which is on the other side of the continent.
  - yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
    Ah, yes, I misread. Interesting nonetheless.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Don't worry, we can just drop a few strategically positioned and timed nukes in the mid Atlantic to counteract the waves.
- dmix 7y ago
  According to Wikipedia that scenario is quite controversial and not a well accepted risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja That article is the definition of FUD, especially the bit about US presidents. Even if there is still a degree of risk. Edit: the wiki cites the author McGuire as misstating the Alaska landslide as a mega tsunami in a BBC show. So he’s known for this type of hysteria.

37 points by luu 7y ago

I work remotely and was planning on moving to Seattle next year. The more I research about the Cascadia Subduction zone and the overdue M9 earthquake, the more I am hesitant to want to live in Seattle. I honestly don't think it's worth moving to somewhere that is anticipating the worst natural disaster in the history of the USA. I think it's beautiful and a great city but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. Especially since it seems the region is extraodonarily underprepared.

iongoatb 7y ago
Btw, from my research, the New Yorker article is a little sensationalized. These videos are a better source of information IMO: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CLEFocYVw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFYO1EU6rs
- hugs 7y ago
  Those videos include an excellent reminder that statistically, you are very, very likely to survive the initial quake, therefore it's smart to stock up on 2 weeks of food and water, and to take a first aid training class.
  - iongoatb 7y ago
    Yes, it's the aftermath that I would be worried about. That and the well-being of your family. What if the quake happened in the middle of the day when the kids were in different schools, the wife was across the bridge in the city, and I was all the way over in Redmond? The destruction would take down cell service, internet, roads, bridges, water lines, electricity - everything to a screeching stop, potentially for WEEKS. That would be catastrophic.
mc32 7y ago
While I think it’s exaggerated, the concerns are valid. If something like what hit Alaska in the ‘60s hits a more densely populated are there will be damage and things will be off line for a while. But also it’s not a catastrophic event that wipes out the economy of the area. Of course that’s of no comfort to the people who will perish n such an event. It’s just that it’s not going to be like a 1920s Tokyo or SF 1906 since we should have better handle on fire and emergency response in general.
dmux 7y ago
I've had similar thoughts, but wouldn't giant companies like Amazon be taking this into consideration if it were really an issue?
- rrmm 7y ago
  I wouldn't count on it. In terms of their IT infrastructure, they've got more than one datacenter geographically distributed so they're prepared for it. I don't think companies are really good about planning around events that don't happen regularly. Especially one as amorphous as "the big one" in a place that isn't California.
  - iongoatb 7y ago
    Agreed. AWS's cloud infrastructure is all about high availability and spreading computing/data resources across regions. The company's operations will be fine. Although, I'm sure the higher ups in Seattle have personally spent enormous resources to get their homes upgraded and have extensively prepared for something like this. The average person can stock up on non-perishable food and water, but besides that they don't have the resources to truly prepare for what is coming.
    - rrmm 7y ago
      You can't really prepare for everything. I would even doubt if most of the Amazon higher-ups are thinking much in this direction or are prepared in even the usual ways (2 weeks of food, a barrel of water, and extra batteries level). We just aren't going to live forever. If its any consolation, you'll (not you in particular :D) probably die in a car accident or a cardiac arrest when you aren't even worried about it.
      - iongoatb 7y ago
        You can certainly prepare your house for the earthquake and shaking. For one, reinforcing the structure, making sure the ground is under the house is attached to stable, hard rock like granite versus sediment, and very importantly, using wood instead of brick or concrete (look at Bill Gates's Xanadu house - it's not a coincidence that it is completely made out of wood, the best house material for withstanding earthquakes). These people are definitely consulting scientists and engineers and preparing themselves and their family for a potential M9+ event.
rrmm 7y ago
Well whatever you do, don't start looking up Yellowstone.
- mc32 7y ago
  Also Naples, IT, also sits atop a “supervolcano”[1]. It’s one whose volcanoes have erupted rather recently. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields
  - m4rtink 7y ago
    I recommend moving to Kagoshima - they have an activo volcano right over the bay (with fregvent ferry service, no less) that regurarly covers the 400k people city in ash. A honest in your face continuous natural disaster, no behind the scenes shaddy stuff that might hut you one day out of the blue. ;-)
    - rrmm 7y ago
      I can appreciate that about a natural disaster. Or one could move to Australia which in general doesn't really try to hide the fact it's constantly trying to kill you.
    - robin_reala 7y ago
      It’s the dirtiest city in Japan that I’ve been too, purely down to the light coating of volcanic ash every building, road and public bench seems to have. Very friendly though and the best butasando.
      - eitland 7y ago
        Butasando looks like some kind of food but it doesn't seem to be well know, this discussion already seems to be on third place on Google for the word.
        robin_reala 7y ago
Communitivity 7y ago
Ken Murphy was the FEMA director at the time. He said that if the Cascadia Fault quake hits "Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast." That's pretty much all you need to know. Insurance probably won't cover quake damage without prohibitive additional charges, so even if you get out you'll lose everything. I've not gone after some Bay Area opportunities I had because of this, and because my wife is terrified of the fires in California. That said, if you still want to chance it I researched and it is possible to commute into Seattle from east of I5, just not fun.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  It’s all some degree of trade-offs. Extreme winters in the north and north east, hurricanes along the East and Caribbean coasts, tornadoes in the middle of the US, extreme heat in the south west. The fires have always been seasonal, but combine that with old infrastructure and poor maintenance, some of it is man made so can be corrected. The earthquake potential, while could be hugely devastating, happens once every 30 years for medium ones and once every 100 or so years for the big ones. That’s very different from the risks the rest of the country deals with every year.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Virginia seems to get a little of everything, but not enough to be an issue. It gets snow but it’s a long way from the extreme winters you get in the north east. Hurricanes turn into heavy rains when you leave the coast. Earthquake’s are hardly a concern outside the risk of minor property damage.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    The West (4 corners) doesn't really get disasters although the typical weather is pretty bonkers.
- dTal 7y ago
  >That said, if you still want to chance it I researched and it is possible to commute into Seattle from east of I5, just not fun. I wouldn't have thought that would even help much. Even if your house survives, its value will tank and your job will be "toast".
dboreham 7y ago
I moved next to Yellowstone. Much worse disaster expected here.
- hugs 7y ago
  Do people there shrug off the risk? Or does it feel like they are generally aware of and have planned for it?
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    There's not really any risk worth worrying about, there is no imminent eruption coming. Its not even a given that it will have a major eruption again. If it does start erupting, we're most likely going to know its imminent well ahead of time (earthquakes, smaller eruptions, etc). In Yellowstone's case, the timescales involved are hundreds of thousands of years or more, where margins of error dwarf human lifetimes.
gst 7y ago
> FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... > For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... The consequences of that earthquake don't sound too bad in comparison to other risks.
- macrolime 7y ago
  If you want this comparisons to make any sense you need to compare with the number of traffic deaths in the area that can be affected by Cascadia, otherwise you might as well compare with millions of other deaths anywhere in the world.
daxfohl 7y ago
I had the same worry three years ago when I moved here. And of being the closest big metro to North Korea. I've gotten used to it. After doing a bit of research I realize the story is overblown (I mean, it'll be bad, especially on the coast, but most people a bit inland will survive and carry on. I lived through Wenchuan so.). I'm far more afraid of these giant Douglas Firs and their branches during snow and wind storms now. And, the likely drop in home value in the next recession. And realistically I should be more afraid of driving to work every day. (Even though Seattle seems to have pretty good drivers compared to Chicago).

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

I was surprised FEMA only estimates 13,000 deaths from this cataclysmic earthquake. I wonder how accurate that is.

maxerickson 7y ago
Earthquakes aren't necessarily highly lethal events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_Uni... Countries that are more exposed to Tsunamis have it worse.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  To be clear, there will be tsunamis: this is potentially a Tohoku-magnitude event closer to the coastline, but the Northwest ocean-front coastline is relatively thinly populated.

cultus 7y ago

This article is misleading and gives a sensationist look at the actual earthquake risk in the NW. It was not well received among seismologists working in the NW. It is not dangerous to live in the NW. Be prepared, yes, but there's no reason to be fearful.

mflamespin 7y ago
Source?
- cultus 7y ago
  From the former director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/ https://www.washington.edu/boundless/earthquake-authority/
  - hyperpape 7y ago
    While that's a useful counterpoint, it doesn't really provide an estimate of the damage that could be done. I'm thinking of questions like: 1. Are there areas where people currently live that shouldn't be inhabited? 2. What's the worst case death toll? I realize there's uncertainty, but a more concrete rebuttal would still be better.
iongoatb 7y ago
I disagree that it's not dangerous. The initial earthquake may only immediately kill a few thousand but the aftermath would be absolutely devastating. It would be the most catastrophic natural disaster and humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States. We know that it is coming and that it is overdue. It would be greater than 911, Katrina, and all the other crises that have occurred that we are still dealing with the aftermath of.
- cultus 7y ago
  No, there's been plenty of worse disasters. The San Francisco 1906 earthquake, the Galveston hurricane, etc. The cumulative earthquake risk around Seattle is about 1/2 of California. I'm not a seismologist, but I was a geophysicist who knew many seismologists working in the NW. They uniformly thought it was sensationalist. I'm not saying this isn't a major threat that must be prepared for, but it's not an apocalyptic or existential threat like this article makes it out to be.

yakshaving_jgt 7y ago

Strange to see this marked as 2015. I watched a documentary in (I think) 2004 that predicted the same (or worse) outcome, but attributed it to the collapse of a volcano on one of the Canary Islands because its structure contains vertical panels of water and is thus unstable. Supposedly, half the volcano will fall into the sea, creating a huge tidal wave which will destroy the entire east coast of the US and 20km inland. Hey, turns out I remembered correctly. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/10/science.spain https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/a...

blacksmith_tb 7y ago
The Grand Canary supervolcano would have a hard time destroying the Northwestern US, which is on the other side of the continent.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
  Ah, yes, I misread. Interesting nonetheless.
bagacrap 7y ago
Don't worry, we can just drop a few strategically positioned and timed nukes in the mid Atlantic to counteract the waves.
dmix 7y ago
According to Wikipedia that scenario is quite controversial and not a well accepted risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja That article is the definition of FUD, especially the bit about US presidents. Even if there is still a degree of risk. Edit: the wiki cites the author McGuire as misstating the Alaska landslide as a mega tsunami in a BBC show. So he’s known for this type of hysteria.